241 Mumbers was conceived by answering this last
question, a couple of months after being chosen as the deepest quandary
facing physics in the 21st Century. Based upon the seminal work of A. J. Meyer on gravitational cosmology, S. T. Sheeter’s
241-Mumbers: The Definitive Data for Fundamental Physics and Cosmology shares the wealth of
break-through discoveries covering every aspect of fundamental physics and
cosmology. In the spirit of the preceding quote, our work is accordingly
dedicated to fulfilling the legacy of Einstein’s vision; yet first serves as a reminder
of how even he was rebuked for years of perceived
failed efforts developing "unified field theory."
For the same question was more fully answered in
the 1990s by Edward Witten's 11 Dimensional Unification of Kaluza-Klein and
Membrane Theory Uniting the various classes of Super-Strings. Dr. Witten was
also wisely instrumental in Choosing Gross's #1 question about
dimensionless numerical scaling over his #2 top question of Strings 2000,
rephrasing Einstein's above profound wording in more specific terms of Quantum
Gravitation. Which A.J. and I had spent ~14 years working on, and had at
least partially solved, before this millennial quandary was even proposed.
Which was then fully accomplished once I had
discretely
deciphered the pure numerical Planck scaling that Meyer had developed! And
shortly, in the Summary* after you read a 4-page Introduction, I'll simply
Explain (in common English, backed by a couple of equations) how this is done
(sans diagrams and footnotes of the central chapter of the 241 Mumbers text),
but can already summarized as follows. For in 1988 I published a definitive
geometry book which is naturally based on a finite, so categorically consistent
and complete, Eleven Dimensional Projective Geometric system (for which the
Pascal Conic on the Cover [shown at the end of our Summary] is its plane
section). In essence, this allows a full solution to Einstein and Witten's
question by giving New Meaning (beyond
standard M-theory) to the Six Dimensions of 6-lines-at-a-point as
Strings, that are so highly Compacted they form a 'Heavy Planck Particle'
associated with an Atemporal (6 point) Five Dimensional Initial Solid State
Clifford Metric. Which then subsequently takes a Discrete Quantum Gravitational
Jump to a Lighter Plank Mass, marking the initiation of Universal Mass Creation
during the first stages of the Inflation Era (which will be explained in full
after one reads particle Table1).
But
there is no way on earth that this could have been accomplished without having
been Given this model by A.J. And I only learned in 2013 the real story of how
he got a hold of me in the 80's from my buddy Robert Fitzpatrick, who I'd met in
Berkeley when he was rooming with one of my best friends. And though I'd
forgotten Bob's name, I had by then come to know practically everyone he went to
High School with in Del Mar CA. Everyone that is, except A.J.'s Nephew Matt
Hartman, who (I haven't yet met but) was with Robert when they visited A.J. for
a week in Connecticut. I know it may seem a little off topic, but that
Thanksgiving day in '13 was too memorable as Robert also went on to tell me,
while I was still recuperating from a liver transplant, that A.J. had sadly died
at 73 in 2011. Yet I was at once happily surprised to learn for the first time
that he had a very impressive list of inventions, though I certainly knew he
also had a long list of VIP physicist friends, a couple of who I met the first
and only time I met him face to face at a conference on gravitation and
cosmology in Florida in Dec. 2000. So after 15 years of relative personal
obscurity here at 241, I still have every reason to believe that sooner or later
what he has given us will be universally recognized as a comprehensive new
foundation for a truly Unified Explanation of Everything.
And in this regard I have to again stress that it
is the very Finitude of This Universe and everything in it that allows it to be
categorically consistent And complete, so is the Only Full and Unified
Explanation that is Possible, which is thus Not a 'Theory.' For you see Gödel's
Theorem applies to an Infinite chain of numbers, a system which can Either be
mapped in a categorically consistent fashion, or a complete manner, but
concludes it's Impossible to be Both. Anyway, though I use accepted theories
such as Kaluza-Klein, Membranes, Super-Symmetry and the extended Higgs mechanism
to construct our particle
tables and general discussions, one should immediately keep in mind that
nearly all standard 'Theories' have been curiously incapable of a Prediction,
let alone giving Precise Equations
for the mass of
any known
particle. Such ironies forcefully illustrate why a (non-metric or)
dimensionless scaling of physics based upon the indisputable invariants
of Numbers,
ratios or pure geometric principles is indispensable - if one is to move beyond
incomplete theories and imprecise empirical measurement correlated with theory
and data encumbered by rough approximations with a host of independent "free
parameters." Yet, as Revelation 11 portends, how many will admit that
determination of such a parameter as a quark mass, though clearly not
directly
measurable
by any means employed by the "empirical court of science," not only remains
"theoretically calculable in principle" - but
is
definitely determinable by uniquely precise and discrete equations, as well
as being empirically demonstrable under or within, what is more
truly a Common "Court of God’s Measure?"
You know if one reads that #1 question carefully, a
couple of underlying assumptions seem to remain rather ambiguously unexamined.
The first was what was exactly implied by the term 'dimensionless parameters?'
After setting up a quite discrete
universal number in our Introduction we go on to derive the central and most
important 'dimensionless parameter' in physics, the
fine structure number.
The discreteness at once
quantizes the number
and makes it invariant as a constant,
the inverse of which describes the
electromagnetic coupling.
That question goes on to frame the scientific alternative if this
wasn't
possible, in which case it would be a 'historical' or
quantum mechanical
'accident.' When one first thinks of something as
being quantum mechanical, what comes to mind is usually the
uncertainty principle
- not
discreteness.
When one thinks of photons as being particles and/or waves, they can be either
depending on how one chooses to look at it, though a 'photon' generally can have
a discrete energy is a particle. But when you think of an electron or a proton,
the first thing that comes to is a
particle with a fixed discrete mass.
And so you see, that is not
a 'dimensionless parameter!' The ratio of the combined mass of the proton and
electron to the scale of a Plank mass is a dimensionless discretely defined
entity, but those masses are the only two independent measured variables in
A.J.'s system, which then allows one to go way beyond answering that
#1 question just in terms of mere 'dimensionless parameters!'
It follows that whether our updated homepage
arouses enough curiosity to pursue a full read (of the essential chapters and
new overviews (see above and below for details*), or especially if you are new
here and/or are just evaluating the implications of what we have to offer, it’s
of benefit to contemplate our second
Sample Data and Proofs
page. For the 3rd
sample allows you to calculate the mass of a down quark mass
by 241's "Best Proof," after you're here simply given the up
quark mass = 3.169816 MeV. {We've given this mass here for 14
years, initially as a come on, though now one can go on to directly study the
basic particle Table1 included in our text's
Summary section on page three
(as suggested above*). Yet as a teacher, learning theorist and largely
self-taught curious student of anything meaningful or interesting, I still
highly recommend following my original instructions deriving the down mass
Yourself from the Sample Data pion differential before you read Sheeter's cheat
sheet. Which also should be read for our later discussion of the gluino as it
relates to the extended overview*. In either case, I recently discovered a
relevant nuance concerning the book value of the up quark mass with regard to
what seems to be a majority of readers who are either 'browsing the web' for
trivial pursuit, or more specifically, those who skeptically evaluate all
"claims" with no intent of 'buying' anything, proven or not. And I don't mean
some e-book, but rather hardened skeptics and intellectually vain eggheads who
only need to download the latest 'certified information' from the Particle Data
Group to occasionally impress their peers or when their pre-programmed pocket
calculator's data bank gets outdated. For out of curiosity one day, having
returned to cosmological particle physics with a joyful vengeance
now that the center-mass energy of the Large Hadron Collider has been boosted
enough to penetrate the full super-symmetry barrier, I took another
gander at the disaster zone of what pdg calls the 'light quarks,' where I saw
something I never noticed before. Which is this statement concerning the
evaluation of the data: "Results at 1 GeV have been rescaled by dividing by
1.35." Now, the data group goes on say the same thing about the down and strange
masses, though those are totally much too low for this trick to work, but the up
is certainly on target. So, dividing 3.169816 by 1.35, we get an up quark value
of 2.34801185 MeV, where pdg's evaluation is 2.3 +.7,-.5. So what do
you know, given their scaling factor, they were almost right! Funny thing is,
though the only independent metric variables in A.J.'s system is the measured
(241 uses the 2000) value of the combined mass of the proton and electron for
calculating masses at all differential scales, the two up quarks of the proton
is the only particle that directly is calculated by a fine-structured
relation to it, after subtracting out the electron by either of two means, which
is itself a rather strong proof. But the point here is that I also obviously
derived the correct value from roughly 1 GeV, but surely didn't need some
arbitrary scale factor after having solved the Central Problem with a so-called
'constant' that has Still been imprecisely Measured since the above #1 question
was Asked!
Anyway, I hope my update on the up quark, and the
down derivation via the pion differential, helps generate a bit more attention
than it's received so far. After all the pudding pi.e is proof enough that
though it might have been tastier when it it was first baked fresh out of the
oven, it never gets stale and is just as delicious, if not enhanced even by
adding some exotic new fruit, after a slow defrost from the freezer and a
quick pop in the microwave. Likewise, in the 2nd
derivation in the Sample Data, the measured mass of the neutral weak Zo
boson is perhaps an even more impressive "pudding proof" as a
demonstration of the validity of Mumbers' unprecedented and
exacting methods, equations and data in regards to the equally precise
mass derived from the lower Higgs vacuum expectation value and the much heavier
strange (+s) and bottom (-b) flavors of the down quark
family, also one of the main decay
products of the Z! But giving their mass values in electron
Volts would be fruitless without comprehension of the greater system that
determines them. For in physical science, as in business or life, the "proof
(in, or) of the pudding is in the eating" - as just a few tastes of
the chef's favorite flavors tantalizing your pallet should be fully sufficient
to confirm an order for a full bowl. Yum.
